Polygamy Then and Now


Published/Last Modified on Saturday, May 17, 2008 3:06 PM MDT


Elder Marlin K. Jensen
Church Historian, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


In the April 23, 2008 online-edition of The New York Times, Timothy Egan wrote a post on the Outposts blog claiming that the way polygamy is practiced today by members of the FLDS sect in Eldorado, Texas is the same as it was practiced by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in the 19th century.

While most people know that Mormons abandoned the practice of polygamy at the end of the 19th century, it's also important to understand that the conditions surrounding the practice of polygamy in Texas today bear little resemblance to the plural marriage practiced by Mormons more than a century ago. In fact, a closer look at history contradicts the simple reductive characterizations of "Mormon polygamy" offered by Egan. As thoughtful historians know, a serious study of history does not impose contemporary understandings and sensibilities onto an interpretation of earlier time periods.

Much of the argument Egan makes for similarities between FLDS polygamy and early Mormon marriage practices relates to the claim of "sexual manipulation" of children as evidenced by the age of marriage. In fact, men and women often married at a much younger age in the 19th century than we find acceptable today. Historian Kathryn Daynes, who has studied the subject in depth, says that although the female average age at marriage in the United States during the nineteenth century was twenty or older, a girl marrying at age 15 was not uncommon and certainly was not considered abused.  The common-law marriage age for women was 12.  Historically, outside of northwestern Europe, women at 14 to 16 were assumed to be ready for marriage.

Egan also seeks to equate the stereotypical view of 19th century Mormon women as timid, subservient, and backward, to the image of FLDS women portrayed in recent days in the media. History, however, paints a different picture. Nineteenth-century Mormon women, in both plural and monogamous marriages, were not just interested in raising families and blindly following their husbands. They were politically active and participated in territorial elections. Unlike the contemporary practice of polygamy in Eldorado, Texas, 19th century plural marriage among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not controlled by the arbitrary authority of one individual. On the contrary, decisions related to marriage were settled by consideration of the feelings of all interested parties. Furthermore, the consent of individual women was always honored in any marriage proposal. Though there was some social and cultural pressure, it was not determinative. Both men and women were free to refuse offers of marriage they found unacceptable.

Brigham Young did not arrange marriages unless he was asked to, and he readily granted divorces. Far from the misconceptions of life-long servitude to the absolute power of the patriarchy, this non-legalistic system of divorce allowed women considerable autonomy.

In distinction to the cloistered isolation of today's polygamous groups, including the FLDS, Mormon culture in the 19th century was characterized by a vibrancy of productive activity in various fields of endeavor: education, industry, politics, community-building, agriculture, and many professions. Latter-day Saints strived to move apace with the rapid demands and changes of life and sought to embrace modernity, not thwart it. They sought to take advantage of the ideas and innovations of modern life by establishing schools and universities of higher education. In this they followed the advice of Joseph Smith: "One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."

Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sacred and ordained of God. The family is the basic social unit in this life and in the next. The social, emotional, and spiritual health of all family members was (in the 19th century) and is today the primary concern of every Latter-day Saint mother and father. Mr. Egan's cavalier comparison of FLDS polygamous practices with those of 19th century Latter-day Saints is historically unsupported and simply wrong. By implication, he also unfairly impugns the integrity of all Latter-day Saint marriages and families, the very institutions they hold most dear.

Comments

    LDSLIBRARIAN wrote on May 23, 2008 6:10 PM:

    " I ALWAYS LOVE WHEN SOME NAMES HIM OR HERSELF TRUTH TELLER. NONE OF US REALLY KNOWS THE TRUTH! WE ALL BELIEVE OR HAVE HOPE IN ALL GOOD THINGS BUT UNTIL THE END REALLY COMES WE EACH BELIEVE IN WHAT GIVES US THAT FEELING OF GOODNESS AND RIGHT IN OUR HEARTS. PLEASE DON'T JUDGE ANY ONE WHO IS TRYING TO FIND HIS OR HER WAY BACK TO GOD. DO WHAT JESUS WANTED US TO DO. LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF AND LOVE GOD. THAT IS ALL ANY OF US CAN DO! i LOVE YOU TRUTH TELLER. "

    dwil wrote on May 23, 2008 7:55 AM:

    " The one point missing in all of the viewpoints is that poligamy was a point of doctrine given to the members to ease the burden of the fatherless and widows after much persecution, that would give someone responsibility for these homes without a man. "

    slick wrote on May 22, 2008 9:41 PM:

    " As i have said from the first day that all this was brought to the daily news fronts. The state of Texas is totaly wrong in their approach to this matter. If it had been any other religion there would be so many court cases filed against the state that court records couldn`t be straightened out in ten years much less anything ever going to court. As for the truth spoken above it is wonderful that to know that there are others that view these people as our equals an not to be judged as many have already done. "

    Historian wrote on May 21, 2008 4:08 PM:

    " You are absolutely right Mr. Jensen.

    The LDS Church of the 19th Century was much, much different from the FLDS Church of today. No one was ever forced into a plural marriage; the women was always given her consent. For those who married at age 16 or so, the consent of her parents was also given as well. Actually, if Im not mistaken, 10 years old was the minimal age for marriage in the 19th century by most states. But even so, we have to remember 19th century America is different from 21st century America. "

    JDD wrote on May 21, 2008 12:10 AM:

    " It's so good to hear a scholarly voice speak about this often-misrepresented and sensationalized topic. I’ve also blogged about the differences between the LDS and FLDS churches, in case anyone’s interested: http://www.allaboutmormons.com/Blog/mormon_church_polygamous_flds_div_ENG_17.php "

    R. Wilson wrote on May 20, 2008 7:26 PM:

    " As usual Mr. Egan is another one who knows really nothing about our faith. He is like many people who believe whatever they are told or what they want to believe. I'm so very greatful that he stands corrected. Thank-you Elder Jensen for setting the record straight. "

    Truth Teller wrote on May 20, 2008 9:01 AM:

    " Aside from practicing "plural marriage," I don't see how these cults differ (FLDS vs. LDS) "

    Ldsoldier wrote on May 18, 2008 12:18 PM:

    " Thank you Elder Jensen. "

Write a Comment

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. They review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Douglas Dispatch is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
* Personal Information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.)

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in douglasdispatch.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Douglas Dispatch. The Douglas Dispatch does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Douglas Dispatch spokespersons.

Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
   









Contact Us

Email the Editor
530 11th Street (85607)
P.O. Drawer H
Douglas, AZ 85608
tel: 520.364.3424
fax: 520.364.6750